Five Myths About Healthy Eating

POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Monday, June 25, 2012 22:59
VIEWED: 8242
PAGE 1 of 1

GEEZER

Sunday, October 16, 2011 6:13 PM

Quote:

By Katherine Mangu-Ward, Published: October 14

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s decision to stay out of the Republican presidential race means that the American people will be spared months of discussion about his ample waistline and the bad example it sets. Nonetheless, with first lady Michelle Obama urging everyone to get moving, obesity remains a political hot potato, or maybe a tater tot. Below, a helping of skepticism about the causes of Americans’ poor eating habits — and the effectiveness of political fixes.

1. People in poor neighborhoods lack access to fresh fruits and vegetables.

Walk into nearly any supermarket in the United States, and you are immediately confronted with abundance — bok choy, mangos, melons and avocados from across the globe — where a couple of varieties of apples and carrots once struggled to fill shelf space.

But not everyone has easy access to this fruity phantasmagoria. If you’re picking up ingredients for dinner at a gas station or a convenience store, you probably live in what eggheads have taken to calling a “food desert” — an ill-defined concept with powerful policy implications. A commonly cited 2009 statistic from the U.S. Department of Agriculture has 23.5 million Americans living in poor urban and rural areas with limited access to fresh food.

Making those food deserts bloom is a centerpiece of Michelle Obama’s anti-obesity agenda. This January found the first lady smiling for the cameras with Wal-Mart executives in Southeast Washington and declaring herself “more hopeful than ever” as she tours the nation’s produce sections.

But the prevalence of food deserts is almost certainly overstated. Not having a supermarket in your Zip code isn’t the last word in access to healthy food. According to the USDA, 93 percent of “desert” dwellers have access to a car. And farmers markets, often overlooked in surveys of rich and poor neighborhoods alike, have tripled since 1994.

Still, it does seem reasonable that making it easier to buy fresh food would improve what people eat. However, a study published this year in the Archives of Internal Medicine, the first to measure the impact of access to fresh food on diet, followed 5,000 people for over 15 years and found something surprising: Proximity to a grocery store or supermarket doesn’t increase consumption of healthy food. That suggests that a lack of convenient leafy greens isn’t the problem. Dinner menus are the product of subtle and pervasive food cultures, which can’t be tweaked from the East Wing.

The primary beneficiaries of tax incentives and other nudges aimed at abolishing food deserts are big grocery chains, not poor shoppers.

2. Advertising forces people to make unhealthy choices.

Television-bound children, their eyes awhirl with images of Tony the Tiger and his high-fructose friends, haunt the debate about junk-food advertising. And any parent who has ever experienced a 2-year-old’s grocery store meltdown would certainly like to have someone to blame. But the Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, has concluded that “current evidence is not sufficient to arrive at any finding about a causal relationship from television advertising to adiposity [excess weight] among children and youth.” Similar findings hold true for adults.

We don’t need advertisers to tell us that candy is delicious. Humans were big fans of fat and sugar long before the idiot box was invented. We’re programmed to go for the good (bad) stuff. Sure, Kellogg’s and General Mills have big advertising budgets, but they’re nowhere near as powerful as Darwin. Cracking down on advertisers gives politicians a scapegoat, but it doesn’t make kids, or their parents, healthier.

3. Eating healthy is too expensive.

A dinner of hot dogs and Devil Dogs is undeniably cheap. But a bowl of beans and rice with a banana on the side is cheaper. A survey by the USDA found that, by weight, bottled water is cheaper than soda, low-fat milk is cheaper than high-fat, and whole fruit is cheaper than processed s

AURAPTOR

Sunday, October 16, 2011 6:19 PM

It really comes down to personal responsibility and the individual making choices for themselves.

Of course, laying blame on anyone but the actual person who makes poor choices is probably 'mean spirited', and runs counter to the "it's not my fault, blame McDonalds! " mindset so many in govt are eager to promote.

SIGNYM

Sunday, October 16, 2011 7:51 PM

Actually, "commodity foods" are cheap, but meat, vegetables and fruits are pretty expensive. While you can fill your belly with beans and rice and corn, it won't make you healthy.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, October 16, 2011 8:09 PM

Fruits and veggies aren't so expensive that they can't be included in one's weekly diet. There's usually a pretty wide selection to choose from, so the 'too pricey' excuse simply doesn't float. And chicken... that's darn cheap too.

GEEZER

Sunday, October 16, 2011 8:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Actually, "commodity foods" are cheap, but meat, vegetables and fruits are pretty expensive. While you can fill your belly with beans and rice and corn, it won't make you healthy.

Vegans and vegetarians might disagree with you about needing meat (or dairy).

Anyway. There's usually healthy stuff on sale.

My local grocery is selling, for example, three 1 lb bags of frozen veggies for $4.00, including mixed veggies, string beans, brocolli and califlower, etc. Chicken leg quarters for $.79 a pound. Apples $.99 a pound. Red seedless grapes $.99 a pound. ten cans of veggies for $10.00. Not that pricey. Organic costs a bit more, but it also costs more to produce.

Or course, I could walk down to Costco and get some of that cheaper.

We cost it out here, and our regular meals for the two of us usually cost less than one meal, or even one burger, at McDucks.

If I can find bottom round beef for $2.50 a pound, like my local store's selling right now, I can make 24 servings of chili for $15.00 of meat and a couple of bucks of spices and garlic. Maybe a can of pinto beans to pour it over and a skillet of cornbread. That's like $.85 cents a serving.

Madame will buy a couple of chickens and stew them, cook down the stock, pick the meat, add some veggies, and make a real healthy and hearty soup we can freeze up for about the same per serving.

Same with stews and spaghetti sauce. Hell, we bake our own bread, and even using expensive flour it's cheaper than the store's (and better, too).

"Keep the Shiny side up"

BYTEMITE

Sunday, October 16, 2011 9:49 PM

I pretty much live on beans, rice, and corn.

I think the main deal is, even though it might be cheaper long term to buy in bulk and have lots of leftovers, the very poor family might not be able to afford that initial $15 cost.

PHOENIXSHIP

Sunday, October 16, 2011 10:15 PM

You're right... these are all personal choices, but here's the problem. I'm a sociology major.

That was a joke, by the way.

The other problem is that when I view this through the lens of a sociologist, I see a specific population (in this case, residents of urban areas) and I find a prevalence of obesity, I wonder if there's a systemic cause. Could be a lack of education, jobs, job training, or lack of personal responsibility? These things are usually caused by more than one thing.

1KIKI

Sunday, October 16, 2011 11:00 PM

To understand their lives try reading "Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America" by Barbara Ehrenreich. http://www.amazon.com/Nickel-Dimed-Not-Getting-America/dp/0805063897

Many people are 'working poor'. Each day is an effort to > try < to get by. Most are renters. Some live in hotels. A rising portion are homeless. Many people are living with other people in a single residence and don't have regular access to working kitchens. Taking a mosey on down to the supermarket to comparison shop and THEN prepare the food at home are luxuries of time and effort. And fast food is - well - fast. And easy to find.

There is another factor - food addiction. About 40% of people have brains that light up to fat, sugar and carbs, and salt in the exact same way a crack addict's brain lights up with crack. The studies referenced that document this can be found in "The End of Overeating: Taking Control of the Insatiable American Appetite" by David Kessler former head of the FDA under Bush, then Clinton. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004NSVE32/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_r
d_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=1605297852&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0EF8DGKF8PS44WM9EB1Q People are exposed to these addicting substances early in life as part of the normal, standard American diet.

These addicting substances didn't become a REGULAR part of the American diet until the fast food franchise and pre-packaged food came into widespread being. Through trial and error, the industries found what would keep people coming back for more of that hit. On the one hand they preach personal responsibility, on the other they advertise and sell addictive foods, to children. Hypocrites much?

And then we have Geezer. Who's fine with all that.

While Wall St. is going through the roof, Main St. is paying all the bills.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, October 17, 2011 1:13 AM

I think it is better to look at things systemically. If obesity and bad eating habits happen across the board amongst the poorest people living in wealthy nations, which it does, so it is not just about poor black neighborhoods in the US, then you need to ask why it is happening and how it is happening.

So we have the same situation here. And so does Britain, so you can rule out race for a start. I don't have a sociology degree (ahem) so I am just speculating why it is so.

Firstly, fast food and convenience food is cheap. I'm on a budget so I do look at prices carefully. Not only is it cheap in your average supermaket, but you can get ultra cheap supermarkets like NQR (Not Quite Right) where it is all frozen and packaged foods. But there is more at play here than just cost, its about desire.

Being poor in a wealthy western country is a whole experience in itself. I've been pretty poor myself, just not hopelessly poor if you know what I mean. You always have access to a TV and advertising and you are bombarded with advertising forcing the same message down your throat. To have and to consume is to be someone. If you don't you are a loser. No one wants to be a loser and the less educated you are, the more prone you are to swallowing that message. That is why children are so vulnerable. And they drive the spending habits of their parents. why parents find it hard to say no to stuff even when they can't afford it.This is why people get into debt so they can pay for things they cannot afford.

Advertisers on the other hand, are not uneducated. Creating markets that are just about irresistable to certain segments of society is a science that has been refined and refined again. Marketing campaigns/advertising works on a whole range of complex levels, and most of us are suckered in to one degree or another to messages or products that have been spun.

So they do target the poor and the vulnerable and they target food and drink advertising, because its easier to buy a Big Mac than a BMW if you want to give yourself a treat (unlike a wealthy friend of mine who bought the boomer in a vulnerable moment.)

There is free choice and so you have not every poor person being obese, but when you have trends you have to try and understand what is going on, other than blaming the most vulnerable as you appear to be doing so yet again.

Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution series focused in part on poverty and food, showing that there are generations of children being born and reproducing that have only known the fast food diet, that eat in front of the TV, don't use knives and forks - don't know how - rather like Americans never learnt (ahem) and certainly have never had anyone cook in their household, and that would include grandma and great grandma as well probably. Cooking and food preparation is one of those things that really gets handed down.

The other thing I wanted to dispute is information about food. FRankly most of it is a lie. Food that is marketed as healthy or low fat are commonly loaded with sugar and preservatives and not in anyway healthy.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, October 17, 2011 2:05 AM

A study which disagrees with the original article. Links watching junk food ads and obesity for children.

"By the time they are 5 years old, children have seen an average of more than 4,000 television commercials for food annually. During Saturday morning cartoons, children see an average of one food ad every five minutes. The vast majority of these ads — up to 95 percent — are for foods with poor nutritional value, the researchers say."

PHOENIXSHIP

Monday, October 17, 2011 5:18 AM

You said it better than I did!

"Why're you arguin' what's already been decided?"
Mal to Jayne, "Jaynestown"

AURAPTOR

Monday, October 17, 2011 9:56 AM

MD - nothing you stated in the least bit changes the fact that it comes down to one's individual choices, and or the choices of the adult for their child.

Parents have, for a large part, control over what their children watch and eat. This idea that we're all brainless programable robots, falling victim to the whims of some heartless, faceless ad agency's dark, insidious intentions, is comical rubbish.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

DMAANLILEILTT

Monday, October 17, 2011 11:56 AM

I think that H. L. Menken and George Orwell would argue that we are brainless, programmable robots.

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

BYTEMITE

Monday, October 17, 2011 1:42 PM

I find myself not entirely in agreement with either side, but that's probably not anything new around here.

I don't believe we're programmable robots - obviously kids will get influenced by commercials they watch on television (the supermarket tantrum point), but in most of the overweight families I've seen, the parents have equally appalling eating habits. Which means the kids are emulating the parents, who probably are a far bigger influence than the television. We have to take into account that mainstream 1950s was a ridiculous time of overeating, new parents who were around during the time of the depression were desperate to not have their kids experience the kind of hunger they did, and all this wasn't helped by nutritional guidelines from the government that recommended a truly excessive diet (the food pyramid). By the 1970s and 80s, those kids were themselves having children, passing on the bad habits without the same reason for it. And that kind of proclivity trickles down from the middle class into the poor communities.

For the kind of overeating we see in the country today, we're talking lots of food, different types of food and not the same thing all the time, and people are just pounding it down. Addiction could be part of it, but even that doesn't fully account for the amount and range of the binge.

I would suspect that the biggest problem of all is portion control. Addiction to food, even certain types of food is not a bad thing, food is needed for survival and humans are hardwired to crave carbohydrates and fats wherever we can get them. The problem comes up when instead of just having one bagel for breakfast, you maybe have an entire bag of store bought bagels (six or so), then a half a box of reheated eggo waffles, all of those smothered in butter, jam, and/or syrup, then an entire box of cereal with milk. That perhaps is an extreme take on that addiction. But honestly, while yes, most of the processed food we eat are bad for us, drinking an 8 oz can of something made with high fructose corn syrup is a different thing than drinking a big gulp.

I do wonder though if there isn't something to be said about the stress of our modern lifestyle. People who are stressed feel tired. People who are stressed feel like they need a big hit of sugar and caffeine. People who are stressed think they need a lot of energy, and so eat a lot, but as a contradiction eating that much food puts on weight and makes simple tasks that much harder to accomplish (making them more tired).

GEEZER

Monday, October 17, 2011 1:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
And then we have Geezer. Who's fine with all that.

What?

Aside from citing an article to start a discussion, all I've said in this thread was that you can get healthy food that's not expensive.

Maybe you should lay off the sugar and caffine for a while.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Monday, October 17, 2011 1:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I don't believe we're programmable robots...

Thinking about it, we kind'a are.

Not so much by the fast food outlets and advertising, but by genetics and evolution.

As noted, we have a craving for fat and protein. I suspect that this is because, until quite recently on the evolutionary scale, we had to use tremendous amounts of energy just to stay alive. Even as recently as 100 years ago, most work was done by muscle power instead of machinery. We're programmed to stoke the boiler for a full day's manual labor, but for some folks who work at a desk, or are not working at all, the ability to cut back just isn't there.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

BYTEMITE

Monday, October 17, 2011 2:11 PM

Strictly speaking, when you're programming something you're putting in an inclination that wasn't already there. What we have is a tendency to act on some natural instincts that can be exploited.

The same can be said for our tribal tendencies to be hijacked into routing for one party or another.

What's programming is when we cease to be able to question the actions of our "tribe" due to indoctrination. Some people are programmed, but not everyone, therefore saying we're all programmable robots is incorrect.

NIKI2

Monday, October 17, 2011 3:11 PM

Kiki, I think you've nailed some things that aren't considered in the article:

Quote:
Many people are 'working poor'. Each day is an effort to > try < to get by. Most are renters. Some live in hotels. A rising portion are homeless. Many people are living with other people in a single residence and don't have regular access to working kitchens. Taking a mosey on down to the supermarket to comparison shop and THEN prepare the food at home are luxuries of time and effort. And fast food is - well - fast. And easy to find.

There is another factor - food addiction. About 40% of people have brains that light up to fat, sugar and carbs, and salt in the exact same way a crack addict's brain lights up with crack.

The increase of families with both parents working just to get by means there is less time to prepare foods, so fast-food is, as you said, fast and easy to get.

And all the education in the world doesn't change people quickly. I posted before about sitting in a waiting room while waiting for paper work when we bought our last car, and watching a thing on TV about a family of very obese people. They were trying to educated them about the dangers of the way they were eating. They took them to the doctor and discovered one of the sons was already diabetic, which made both parents cry. They got educated on why they should change their habits and how; six months later they were back to eating just the way they had before. None of those things in the article mention how difficult it is to get people to ACT on what they learn. By that time the son was on medication, and his continued poor eating habits were seriously affecting his health.

While we're certainly not programmable robots, I would use the word "indoctrinated". Can anyone actually argue that the TV kids watch, with it's massive advertising for "yummy" food flies at them every few minutes, doesn't have an effect? It takes effort on the part of the parents to fight this tide, and of course most of the "other kids eat that!", so there's that battle, too.

And our systems HAVE changed, as Geezer noted. In Japan and other places, poverty has kept people living on rice and beans and such, with little red meat, so I think their systems would take longer to change to what our systems are like.

I would say the article omits some important facts, and even within it are caveats that not all those "myths" are completely false. I think it's too complex an issue to be broken down into a couple of "reasons", in part because all the things we've discussed are different for different segments of the population.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

SIGNYM

Monday, October 17, 2011 4:23 PM

Well, the whole "You can eat food that's good and cheap" relies on a whole bunch of things, including a large working freezer (or two) separate from the frig. Like the "working poor" are going to have one of THOSE! With a large freezer or two, sure- you can buy a half side of beef (of course, you may need three or four paychecks to do it, but who's counting?), put it in your car (or lug it with you on the bus, but who's counting?) and prepare foods in bulk (which may take a day or two, but who's counting?) and have healthful meals which are cheap (less the time and up-front investment).

The other point... and I suppose this will bring up a whole raft of criticism of "the poor"... but many of the poor, beside being WORKING poor... are also single parent households. So aside from working a job, and keeping a crappy car running (or taking public transport) and trying to keep up with your kids, there is somehow supposed to be time leftover for cooking in bulk?

What would be REALLY helpful would be pre-prepared foods that are kind of good for you, that don't cost an arm and a leg.

SIGNYM

Monday, October 17, 2011 4:39 PM

BYTE:

If you are really living on beans, rice, and corn, your problems may be due to a serious lack of B12.

Humans NEED B12. There is no way around it. And there is NO plant-based source.... none, zip, nada. Even the yeast which has B12 gets it from supplementation. If you are not supplementing with B12 please please please go out and get pills with big doses... 2000 mcg or more... B12 is not always efficiently absorbed.

As a general comment about nutrition:

Rue pointed out that humans NEED TO EAT BOTH B12 (meat) and vitamin C (fruit, vegetables). As such, we are OBLIGATE OMNIVORES... we are required to eat BOTH MEAT AND VEGETABLES/FRUITS. Furthermore, compared to other apes humans need significantly higher amounts of omega-3 fatty acids, iodine, and vitamins A and D.

Yes, poor people "can" live on rice, beans, corn, bananas, and coconut oil, but they will be overall deficient in B12, iron, zinc, omega-3, D, A, niacin, iodine, etc. The most common micronutrient deficiencies worldwide are vitamins A, D, and the mineral iodine. Whole populations have suffered from nutritional deficiencies- iodine ("mongoloid" idiocy), vitamin A (blindness) and vitamin D (rickets)

With the advent of cheap food-oils, poor people all over the world are now getting fat- but malnourished- on a combination of cheap starches and oils- just like our junk food here at home.

BYTEMITE

Monday, October 17, 2011 4:39 PM

Quote:
While we're certainly not programmable robots, I would use the word "indoctrinated". Can anyone actually argue that the TV kids watch, with it's massive advertising for "yummy" food flies at them every few minutes, doesn't have an effect? It takes effort on the part of the parents to fight this tide, and of course most of the "other kids eat that!", so there's that battle, too.

I guess it would depend on the kid's own tastes and how much they really paid attention to commercials.

I hate greasy food and fat, always have, and now that I'm older I'm not sure I digest it properly. So I never liked the fast food restaurants, except for Mexican (beans, rice, corn, tomatoes, not so greasy) and I only liked very specific brands of pizza that weren't as greasy as the other brands (and I liked lots of vegetables on them too).

So I never really asked for that stuff.

But I am addicted to sugar, and as a kid I'd ask for ice cream, candy, and confections all the time. But the thing is, even though there were times I'd eat a whole quart of ice cream in one sitting (and even with several spoonfuls of sugar on top), that wasn't the television asking for it. I wasn't asking for a particular brands or flavour I saw advertised. I just knew what I liked, partially informed by what my parents liked and what they bought for us to try.

Also, we lived out in a rural area, so after I binged on sugar, well, "hummingbird" is an apt description.

SIGNYM

Monday, October 17, 2011 4:50 PM

Oh, and CHOLINE.

When a nutritionist examined the several latest versions of what the FDA said was "healthy eating" she found there was NO source of choline.

Choline is extremely important, and most ppl are deficient in it. Best source is eggs.

I sometimes wonder if the reason why there are so many autistic kids nowadays is the lack of vitamin D (sunshine) or choline or some other obscure deficiency.

GEEZER

Monday, October 17, 2011 5:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, the whole "You can eat food that's good and cheap" relies on a whole bunch of things, including a large working freezer (or two) separate from the frig. Like the "working poor" are going to have one of THOSE! With a large freezer or two, sure- you can buy a half side of beef (of course, you may need three or four paychecks to do it, but who's counting?), put it in your car (or lug it with you on the bus, but who's counting?) and prepare foods in bulk (which may take a day or two, but who's counting?) and have healthful meals which are cheap (less the time and up-front investment).

Don't need to buy a side of beef. Buy 20 pounds when it's on sale somewhere (most anyone should be able to carry 20lbs in a cart, bag, or backpack) and cook it up and freeze it in something like this.

http://www.homedepot.com/Appliances-Kitchen-Appliances-Freezers-Chest-
Freezers/h_d1/N-5yc1vZbv40/R-100598963/h_d2/ProductDisplay?langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053

At $198.00 delivered, it's not that expensive. Also a great place to put frozen veggies you buy on sale.

Quote:
The other point... and I suppose this will bring up a whole raft of criticism of "the poor"... but many of the poor, beside being WORKING poor... are also single parent households. So aside from working a job, and keeping a crappy car running (or taking public transport) and trying to keep up with your kids, there is somehow supposed to be time leftover for cooking in bulk?

We were able to do our cooking in bulk when we were working. Most of it isn't actual work, just waiting for it to cook. My chili takes maybe 20 minutes to cut the beef, measure the spices, and put it in the pot. Then an occasional stir and another 15 to package it for the freezer.

Also, when you have it prepared ahead, it only takes a few minutes heating up to prepare, saving time over several days.

Quote:
What would be REALLY helpful would be pre-prepared foods that are kind of good for you, that don't cost an arm and a leg.

Healthy Choice Complete Meals on sale five for $10.00. Green Giant Create a Meal Stir Fry for $3.69. Both at my local Giant Foods. Or you can make a cheap, healthy,tasty meal with some frozen veggies and cheap chicken pieces that doesn't take much longer than thawing the pre-prepared stuff.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

BYTEMITE

Monday, October 17, 2011 6:36 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44835708/ns/health-health_care/t/taking-ex
tra-vitamins-it-could-be-too-much-good-thing/

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/diet-supplements-harm-older-women-study/s
tory?id=14706684

I will only take supplementals if I have had my blood tested and it shows I am deficient with that vitamin.

I had my blood tested last February.

I am not deficient.

Unfortunately, my behaviour on this board is my own particular eccentricity, you're probably stuck with the way I am.

1KIKI

Monday, October 17, 2011 6:46 PM

"... and freeze it in something like this ..."

You forget, the poor are RENTERS. Most are sharing the place with another family, or more. They don't have the option to install appliances.

"At $198.00 delivered, it's not that expensive."

At $198.00 it's too expensive for those making minimum wage and paying rent. Let's do the math. A minimum wage job generally brings home less than $1,000 per month, after SSI and state taxes. Rent is minimally $600 per month (in a cheap state, for a 1 bedroom). Then there are utilities and transportation, minimally $100 per month. Not counting any other expenses, that leaves $300 per month for food, for a family of three. And you are proposing that this family spend $200 for a freezer. Tell me, which month should they stop eating in order to get this 'not that expensive' freezer?

I can tell you have never been poor, really really poor. I have. There are all sorts of things you COULD do - to save time, and money, and effort - if only you could get ahead by a few hundred dollars here or there. But you are always right on the edge of going under. So you can't.

Instead of making judgments about what 'they' could do and how 'they' could be as well off as you would be, if only 'they' were as smart and ambitious as you, I suggest you read 'Nickel and Dimed', listed above. This was written by an investigative reporter - certainly a smart and ambitious person - who got various minimum wage jobs in different areas of the country and who TRIED to live on those wages. It's an excruciating account of what it means to be poor.

"We were able to do our cooking in bulk when we were working... and another 15 to package it for the freezer."

Ah yes, the freezer that would be handy, if only you could have one.

"Healthy Choice Complete Meals on sale five for $10.00."

Assuming one had a freezer and could stock up on sale items, and had the time and transportation to shop the sales, one would need to eat 4/day to get the necessary amount of protein. That's $8/ day or $24/day for a family of three, or $720/ month for a family of three. OOPS. That's $420 more dollars per month than you have, for food. On top of that, you would have to supplement with extra food for extra calories. And the sodium content is high, making this an undoable (that freezer thing, that sale thing, that time and transport thing), unaffordable and not very 'healthy choice'. A Burger King double Whopper 'value meal' OTOH, despite being light in protein and vegetables, and very heavy on salt and fat, supplies your calories for the day at $4.89. And, you don't have to shop sales for it, store it, or prepare it. It may be unhealthy. But when it comes to shear day to day survival, it is the rational choice.

While Wall St. is going through the roof, Main St. is paying all the bills.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

BYTEMITE

Monday, October 17, 2011 7:38 PM

I more agree with Kiki's assessment of poverty. I've done some number crunching and budget balancing and projections myself for $1,000 a month. And even with the cheapest imaginable apartment and ten cent ramen and no car or car insurance, it's tight.

SIGNYM

Monday, October 17, 2011 8:13 PM

Byte, have you had your blood tested for B12? By the time B12 shows up as aplastic anemia, it is already far too late to reverse other problems. Sorry to be a nudge, but I've dealt with people short B12 for a variety of reasons (two vegans, one with poor absorption due to iron-deficiency anemia, one with poor absorption due to old age) and when it was added as a supplement is made a HUGE difference. A person's need for B12 is non-negotiable; the body either gets what it needs or fails.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, October 17, 2011 8:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
MD - nothing you stated in the least bit changes the fact that it comes down to one's individual choices, and or the choices of the adult for their child.

Parents have, for a large part, control over what their children watch and eat. This idea that we're all brainless programable robots, falling victim to the whims of some heartless, faceless ad agency's dark, insidious intentions, is comical rubbish.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

I am just responding to posts as I read them, so excuse me if I repeat what someone else says.

we are not mindless programable robots but we are certainly influenced by media and marketing, otherwise why the hell would they bother?

You are correct that it is a parent's responsibility what they feed a child, however I think it is worth looking at societal trends and trying to work out why they happen. Don't you? If you have one obese family in a street, then you might consider that they have made bad choices. If you have a whole street full of obese people, you might start to wonder what was going on. If you have a whole nation/culture then you might think that something more than poor individual choice was at play. Even if your argument is 'many parents make poor choices regarding food for their family' - it is a trend. Then you might want to ask yourself 'how can parents be encouraged to make good choices for their kids' given all the health problems associated with poor nutritian.

Great topic. Made me revisit Jamie Oliver and his quest to change entrenched poor dietary choices of the British - particularly some classes. Ministry of Food was compelling viewing and made me realise how much I love Jamie, despite his reckless disregard for his children's happiness by calling them all ridiculous names.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, October 17, 2011 8:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

I don't believe we're programmable robots - obviously kids will get influenced by commercials they watch on television (the supermarket tantrum point), but in most of the overweight families I've seen, the parents have equally appalling eating habits. Which means the kids are emulating the parents, who probably are a far bigger influence than the television. We have to take into account that mainstream 1950s was a ridiculous time of overeating, new parents who were around during the time of the depression were desperate to not have their kids experience the kind of hunger they did, and all this wasn't helped by nutritional guidelines from the government that recommended a truly excessive diet (the food pyramid). By the 1970s and 80s, those kids were themselves having children, passing on the bad habits without the same reason for it. And that kind of proclivity trickles down from the middle class into the poor communities.

You could also say that 1950's was a time when TV watching became prevalent, and with it, exposure to ads. There is no doubt in my mind that a sedentry lifestyle + a diet filled with highly processed, high fat and sugary diets leads to obesity. Watching TV and eating junk food in other words. And I guess what we see now is generational behaviour, which is hard to crack.

Quote:
For the kind of overeating we see in the country today, we're talking lots of food, different types of food and not the same thing all the time, and people are just pounding it down. Addiction could be part of it, but even that doesn't fully account for the amount and range of the binge.

I see it here as well. Sizes have definitely gotten larger. Ever seen a documentary called 'Supersize me' where this guy decides to only eat McDOnalds for a month and says yes to every supersize request.

From IMDB "Super Size Me is a 2004 American documentary film directed by and starring Morgan Spurlock, an American independent filmmaker. Spurlock's film follows a 30-day period from February 1 to March 2, 2003 during which he eats only McDonald's food. The film documents this lifestyle's drastic effects on Spurlock's physical and psychological well-being, and explores the fast food industry's corporate influence, including how it encourages poor nutrition for its own profit.

Spurlock dined at McDonald's restaurants three times per day, eating every item on the chain's menu. Spurlock consumed an average of 20.92 megajoules or 5,000 kcal (the equivalent of 9.26 Big Macs) per day during the experiment.

As a result, the then-32-year-old Spurlock gained 24½ lbs. (11.1 kg), a 13% body mass increase, a cholesterol level of 230, and experienced mood swings, sexual dysfunction, and fat accumulation in his liver. It took Spurlock fourteen months to lose the weight gained from his experiment using a vegan diet supervised by his future wife, who is a chef specialized in vegan dishes and gourmet.

The reason for Spurlock's investigation was the increasing spread of obesity throughout U.S. society, which the Surgeon General has declared "epidemic," and the corresponding lawsuit brought against McDonald's on behalf of two overweight girls, who, it was alleged, became obese as a result of eating McDonald's food [Pelman v. McDonald's Corp., 237 F. Supp. 2d 512].[3] Spurlock points out that although the lawsuit against McDonald's failed (and subsequently many state legislatures have legislated against product liability actions against producers and distributors of "fast food"), much of the same criticism leveled against the tobacco companies applies to fast food franchises whose product is both physiologically addictive and physically harmful.[4][5]"

BYTEMITE

Monday, October 17, 2011 8:40 PM

Sig: I appreciate what you're trying to do, but I don't think there's a problem, and even if there was, I wouldn't do anything about it.

Magons: Thing is, my grandmother is overweight, and her eating habits lead directly to one of her sons being seriously overweight and her other sons struggling with cholesterol issues. And in her case, it wasn't the fault of a sedentary lifestyle, she didn't watch much tv, she was a 50s housewife and busy cleaning the house, cooking breakfast lunch and dinner and watching five boys. She told me it was her experiences with the great depression that led to her overeating, and I believe it.

I will, however, agree that television and a sedentary lifestyle made a big difference with her sons.

AURAPTOR

Monday, October 17, 2011 8:41 PM

Social trends are nothing more than individuals making choices, and falling in line w/ the collective group think. If those around you are a little chunky, then hey, why not... you'll fit right in if you have that extra big mac. Monkey see, monkey do. It's the individuals who choose to NOT follow the herd that 'stand out', and often get peer pressured into falling in line.

I found this amusing...

Quote:
I am just responding to posts as I read them, so excuse me if I repeat what someone else says.

we are not mindless programable robots

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

1KIKI

Monday, October 17, 2011 8:54 PM

I see, once again, little Rappy has nothing to add beyond unsupported personal opinion.

In terms of mental diet, Rappy is fa(c)t-free.

While Wall St. is going through the roof, Main St. is paying all the bills.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

AURAPTOR

Monday, October 17, 2011 9:50 PM

Actually, my personal opinion is supported. I know, because I lived it.

Doesn't get more real than that.

But if you want more than my testimony, I suggest you read up some...

http://www.baptiststandard.com/2002/4_8/pages/cooper_kenneth.html

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

BYTEMITE

Monday, October 17, 2011 9:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Actually, my personal opinion is supported. I know, because I lived it.

Doesn't get more real than that.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

While I agree that people DO have a choice in what they eat, if your experience is that people are peer pressured into becoming overweight, then your experience is very different from my experience.

AURAPTOR

Monday, October 17, 2011 10:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Actually, my personal opinion is supported. I know, because I lived it.

Doesn't get more real than that.

While I agree that people DO have a choice in what they eat, if your experience is that people are peer pressured into becoming overweight, then your experience is very different from my experience.

People are peer pressured to do a lot of things, from the styles of clothes they wear, to how they worship ( if at all ) , to the music they listen to, the politics they follow, all sorts of things. It's quite common, and "safer " to blend in w/ the crowd. Those who deviate from everyone else, tend to get noticed.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

BYTEMITE

Monday, October 17, 2011 10:23 PM

I'm not sure how to reconcile your point of view with the sort of appearance (thin, young, with lustrous hair) that is marketed as the ideal body type. Even when the said ideal body types are hawking unhealthy foods which lead to an unideal body type.

If you mean that people are being sold that a product can make them look young, thin, and healthy, then yes. But if you're arguing that people who are around people who are overweight want to BECOME overweight to fit in, I don't think I can agree.

1KIKI

Monday, October 17, 2011 10:34 PM

"Social trends are nothing more than individuals making choices, and falling in line w/ the collective group think."

And then, after your paean to the heroic individual who stands against the group think that (you claim) makes people overweight, you post a link from a different group hawking their own type of group think.

Well, I have to say, if it wasn't for group think, you wouldn't think at all.

While Wall St. is going through the roof, Main St. is paying all the bills.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

AURAPTOR

Monday, October 17, 2011 10:50 PM

Quote:
...you post a link from a different group hawking their own type of group think.

So, living healthy is now 'group think' ?

Really? Is that the best you have ?

So, nothing is good enough for you. Either I'm fa(c)t less, or I'm pushing some sort of group think ?

Man, the contortions you go through to keep from even TRYING to have a reasonable conversation.

Dr Kenneth Cooper is a pioneer in the use of aerobics to train and to maintain good health. I think the guy knows a bit more about fitness than most here, and if becoming informed, if expanding one's knowledge on being healthy is nothing but " group think " to you, then you truly are a mindless, programmed robot.

Nothing I or anyone says or does will be worth your while, so why even pretend to carry on w/this debate? It's all big burger's fault, all the ad agencies fault, that we're fat, right ?

Your mind is made up, it seems.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

SIGNYM

Monday, October 17, 2011 11:17 PM

Quote:
I don't think there's a problem, and even if there was, I wouldn't do anything about it.

Er....

?????

1KIKI

Monday, October 17, 2011 11:35 PM

As I posted "you post a link from a different group hawking their own type of group think."

Annnnd ... heeeeere it is!

baptiststandard

The Coopers are members of Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano.

If the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, as the Bible states, is it sinful to be overweight or to take things into the body that would harm it?

I think it is just as sinful to be overweight as it is to smoke a pack of cigarettes a day. Anything you do to your body that may shorten your life, to me, is sinful. I'm afraid a lot of pastors don't understand that. As a profession, pastors are the most poorly conditioned people who come through our clinic. You are to glorify God in your body as well as your spirit.

What role has religious faith played in your life?

It's been the foundation of my life, without question. I am a man of faith and a man of prayer. ... while my vision was finite, the Lord's vision was infinite. Each day I get here at about 6:30 a.m. and spend the first 30 minutes in prayer and Bible study, and I read Christian books. My favorites are Chuck Swindoll and Max Lucado--both of them my patients. Now I am reading "When Couples Pray" by Sherry Fuller during my Bible study in the morning. She says when couples pray only 1 percent of marriages end in divorce. Millie and I are coming up on 43 years of marriage, and we have prayed through all of them. Both of our children are fine Christians.

Without the benefit of the surrounding society, a corporation dies. If society looks at a corporation and says 'work, or die', what work should be demanded of the corporation for it to earn its survival?

While Wall St. is going through the roof, Main St. is paying all the bills.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

AURAPTOR

Monday, October 17, 2011 11:50 PM

So, you dismiss all his work and research on the issue of fitness, because of his religious views?

Wow.

Guess you skipped right over this part...

Quote:
Can you be overweight and still be healthy?

It's hard to say. One statement we make is it's better to be fat and fit than skinny and sedentary. But it's not because we are endorsing obesity; we are just telling you how dangerous it is to be sedentary. The surgeon general in 1996 encouraged us to collectively get 30 minutes of activity most days of the week. He also said recently that within 10 years we would have more people dying because of obesity than from smoking. So it's awfully hard to say that you can be fat and be healthy

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

1KIKI

Monday, October 17, 2011 11:53 PM

No, I'm dismissing YOU 'cause you're an idiot who can't post two sentences in a row that don't contradict each other.

Without the benefit of the surrounding society, a corporation dies. If society looks at a corporation and says 'work, or die', what work should be demanded of the corporation for it to earn its survival?

While Wall St. is going through the roof, Main St. is paying all the bills.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

AURAPTOR

Monday, October 17, 2011 11:56 PM

Where's the contradiction?

( Stick to the thread, if you can )

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

1KIKI

Monday, October 17, 2011 11:58 PM

Oh, I already posted it. It had the word 'paean' in it. Go back and read it. Look up any difficult words you need to.

Oh, btw, at this point I think I've made my point. You posted what you think of 'them' and their group think. Because to you all group think is bad, unless it's a brand of white, rich group think. In another thread you posted that you think illegals should be at least as smart as animals.

And, Signym, it isn't fear that drives little Rappy. It snarling, tooth-baring greed, and hate.

Without the benefit of the surrounding society, a corporation dies. If society looks at a corporation and says 'work, or die', what work should be demanded of the corporation for it to earn its survival?

While Wall St. is going through the roof, Main St. is paying all the bills.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, October 18, 2011 12:08 AM

Nope, no contradiction there, sorry.

Oh, you think that because of Dr Cooper's faith, that what he has to say about health is invalid ?

So, in brief, you HAVE no response, no reply, only to demagogue anyone who is religious, and dismiss everything they say, out of hand ?

Hell, talk about being narrow minded.

I'm an atheist, and could care less what religion Dr Cooper is. It's his work in the field of fitness that is relevant.

Got anything of SUBSTANCE ?

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

HKCAVALIER

Tuesday, October 18, 2011 12:09 AM

Why. Why, everybody? Why continue? Are y'all expecting a different response, expecting the message will EVER be recieved and integrated?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

1KIKI

Tuesday, October 18, 2011 12:21 AM

You're right.

Without the benefit of the surrounding society, a corporation dies. If society looks at a corporation and says 'work, or die', what work should be demanded of the corporation for it to earn its survival?

While Wall St. is going through the roof, Main St. is paying all the bills.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, October 18, 2011 12:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Why. Why, everybody? Why continue? Are y'all expecting a different response, expecting the message will EVER be recieved and integrated?

HKCavalier

I'm the only one who tried to keep the discussion on topic, and not descend into petty insults.

When challenged, all 1kiki did was balk, and try to interject a red herring, having nothing to do w/ the issue.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

RIONAEIRE

Tuesday, October 18, 2011 12:51 AM

I have to admit that occasionally I see resturant commercials that make me want to eat what they're showing, yum, I love eating. My naturopath is telling me that I need to eat some protein every morning and something for lunch, plus snacks. That sounds tiring and annoying, I'm trying to do better at it but its annoying because I like eating one big meal a day, usually at dinner, and a few little snacks. If I don't eat in the morning I'm not hungry later. If I do eat in the morning, as I've discovered this week, I'm ravenously hungry all day and its really distracting and I don't like it. I'm going to get fat if I keep eating breakfast every day, even just a tiny bit of it. But she's annimant about it, errrrrgh. She's also expensive too, I don't know how long I'll be able to afford this naturopathic mental health thing, we'll see how it goes.

When I was little I didn't care about food commercials, I was an extremely picky eater so I only liked what I liked.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Tuesday, October 18, 2011 8:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

Magons: Thing is, my grandmother is overweight, and her eating habits lead directly to one of her sons being seriously overweight and her other sons struggling with cholesterol issues. And in her case, it wasn't the fault of a sedentary lifestyle, she didn't watch much tv, she was a 50s housewife and busy cleaning the house, cooking breakfast lunch and dinner and watching five boys. She told me it was her experiences with the great depression that led to her overeating, and I believe it.

I will, however, agree that television and a sedentary lifestyle made a big difference with her sons.

Well as I said, if you have one overweight person in amongst a population of slender people, then it is definitely about personal choice and maybe some metabolism issues as well.

As far as I can tell, obese people used to be a lot rarer. If I take my family as an example, I had 2 skinny grandmothers who ate cake and biscuits and fatty meats and cream and butter. The difference was that neither of them drove, both worked hard and both only really ate food that they or someone they knew had prepared. Eating out was very, very rare. Take away unknown (except for the occasional fish and chips which used to be the only take away). I can see the generations getting heftier. Below me there are a couple of youngsters (20's) who really need to watch out because it aint good news to chunk up that young.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Tuesday, October 18, 2011 8:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Social trends are nothing more than individuals making choices, and falling in line w/ the collective group think. If those around you are a little chunky, then hey, why not... you'll fit right in if you have that extra big mac. Monkey see, monkey do. It's the individuals who choose to NOT follow the heard that 'stand out', and often get peer pressured into falling in line.

Or making choices that fall into line with collective group think. Either/either. They are trends and they have causes. I don't think you have to deal with one or the other. You can encourage people to make good individual choices and you can look at some of the wider factors that contribute and see what you can deal with there. It seems however, that you prefer to point the finger of blame at your favourite target groups, poor disenfranchised racial minorities.

Quote:
I found this amusing...

Quote:
I am just responding to posts as I read them, so excuse me if I repeat what someone else says.

we are not mindless programable robots

You must be easily amused or i missed something or you missed something

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Tuesday, October 18, 2011 8:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
I have to admit that occasionally I see resturant commercials that make me want to eat what they're showing, yum, I love eating. My naturopath is telling me that I need to eat some protein every morning and something for lunch, plus snacks. That sounds tiring and annoying, I'm trying to do better at it but its annoying because I like eating one big meal a day, usually at dinner, and a few little snacks. If I don't eat in the morning I'm not hungry later. If I do eat in the morning, as I've discovered this week, I'm ravenously hungry all day and its really distracting and I don't like it. I'm going to get fat if I keep eating breakfast every day, even just a tiny bit of it. But she's annimant about it, errrrrgh. She's also expensive too, I don't know how long I'll be able to afford this naturopathic mental health thing, we'll see how it goes.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

I find the same. If I eat porridge for breakfast, I'm starving an hour later. It kick starts your metabolism. Lately I stick to having a veg/fruit juice for breakfast, and it tends to stifle my hunger. Not sure why.

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, October 18, 2011 12:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter: It seems however, that you prefer to point the finger of blame at your favourite target groups, poor disenfranchised racial minorities.

You see target groups, and 'minorities'.

I just see - people.

As Mal said, "We're all just folk ".

All of us.

NIKI2

Tuesday, October 18, 2011 5:21 PM

Coming into the discussion late, so this'll be long, as I'm responding as I read.

Quote:
There are all sorts of things you COULD do - to save time, and money, and effort - if only you could get ahead by a few hundred dollars here or there. But you are always right on the edge of going under. So you can't.

Bang on, Kiki! Heck, coming up with that on any given month is virtually impossible for US, unless we tap into savings, and we're not poor! I have a hard time conceiving of poor people having that much at any given moment to spend as they choose...especially given the number of kids living in poverty right NOW who go to bed hungry! It seems like a glaring blind spot to think poor people can put away ANYTHING to save up for a big purchase, especially these days.

I'm glad you brought up the sodium thing, too, which often gets overlooked. Even if one can afford to feed one's family on frozen dinners, the amount of sodium in virtually ALL our frozen and packaged meals in America is incredible. So is the sugar content; Jo was astonished when she lived her that there seems to be sugar in virtually everything we eat. I guess it's different in England, but then THEY eat fat--literally, we'd make a roast and Jo would grab the fat immediately, and cooked everything in grease...she said in England they use LARD a lot more than we do, too! I know that's partly because it's a cold-weather climate and they've got generations of evolution to make them that way, but it made me have to turn away, given I generally use Pam or no oil at all!

Ah, Magons, thanx--everything you wrote is valid, and you gave me Jamie Oliver's name back. He was the one trying to deal with that obese family with the diabetic son. Apparently he's doing work over here now, too, and I've caught some of his stuff--like pouring all the ingredients into a big tarp so kids can see what actually goes in. I admire him and wish him all the luck in the world, but after what I saw with that one family, I hope he doesn't get too discouraged by us Yanks!

Quote:
what we see now is generational behaviour, which is hard to crack.

Absofrigginlootely!

Because of high cholesterol and the resulting arteriosclerosis, Jim started making his own meals years ago. I gag at them, sometimes I call them "bean soup" and being a vegaphobic, I couldn't eat them, but after a couple of years we found that there were things he literally could NOT eat anymore. I'd make a dish I thought was fine, he'd try to eat it and had to give up fairly quickly, it was just what he called "too rich" for him. So obviously there's a metabolic change and it takes time; put that against the ease of fast foods, advertising, finances and other factors, and I think weaning our nation off it's epidemic obesity is damned hard.

My gawd, it's a 1% day for Raptor (where I'm concerned):

Quote:
Social trends are nothing more than individuals making choices, and falling in line w/ the collective group think. If those around you are a little chunky, then hey, why not... you'll fit right in if you have that extra big mac. Monkey see, monkey do. It's the individuals who choose to NOT follow the heard that 'stand out', and often get peer pressured into falling in line.

I absolutely agree. I disagree with Kiki; there is a lot of peer pressure among young people, and if the group is going out for pizza, for example, one of them has to be pretty self-assured to order a salad, or not go at all. I think he makes a very valid point.

His experience may be different from yours, Byte, but that doesn't make it any less valid. MY experience was much more akin to his; I was mostly a loner, shy, and the victim of bullying and teasing. To be INVITED to go have pizza with other kids (high school, I'm talking about) was neat enough, I didn't care WHAT I actually ate! And I've been around a gr

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, October 18, 2011 5:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Actually, my personal opinion is supported. I know, because I lived it.

Doesn't get more real than that.

While I agree that people DO have a choice in what they eat, if your experience is that people are peer pressured into becoming overweight, then your experience is very different from my experience.

Not my experience at all, actually. Quite the opposite. I guess my point is that it's easier for some to fall in line with accepted norms, than to step out on their own.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Tuesday, October 18, 2011 6:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

Ah, Magons, thanx--everything you wrote is valid, and you gave me Jamie Oliver's name back. He was the one trying to deal with that obese family with the diabetic son. Apparently he's doing work over here now, too, and I've caught some of his stuff--like pouring all the ingredients into a big tarp so kids can see what actually goes in. I admire him and wish him all the luck in the world, but after what I saw with that one family, I hope he doesn't get too discouraged by us Yanks!
Quote:
what we see now is generational behaviour, which is hard to crack.

The Brits behaviour was also hard to change. Behaviour change is just hard, but you have to admire his enthusiasm.

Quote:
Because of high cholesterol and the resulting arteriosclerosis, Jim started making his own meals years ago. I gag at them, sometimes I call them "bean soup" and being a vegaphobic, I couldn't eat them, but after a couple of years we found that there were things he literally could NOT eat anymore. I'd make a dish I thought was fine, he'd try to eat it and had to give up fairly quickly, it was just what he called "too rich" for him. So obviously there's a metabolic change and it takes time; put that against the ease of fast foods, advertising, finances and other factors, and I think weaning our nation off it's epidemic obesity is damned hard.

A major issue is the training of taste buds to accept healthy food and to like it. Kids tastebuds are ruined early if they are exposed to a diet of sugary, fatty foods it becomes hard to change them into liking healthy foods. Another interesting piece of reality tv was a british made program called 'Eatoholics' where they'd find these very freaky people who'd would only eat white bread and chips, or some really unhealthy limited diet. They send a team of people in - dieticians, doctors, psychologists - to try and change the behaviour. Some of these people had never tried fresh fruit or veg in their lives. They would gag when they tried to eat something like a strawberry, what most of us would find delicious. They all had really underdeveloped palates and in particular complained about the textures of food they were unfamiliar with and sometimes literally could not swallow them. If you think about most junk food, it is quite soft. McDOnalds is almost texture free, it's like eating sponge. It took quite a lot to get them to develop their diets to incorporate healthy options and sometimes it didn't work, even though all of them had poor health predictions for the future (they were usually quite young). All of them seem to have a similar experience in that they had been fussy eaters as a child and their parents had given in for the sake of peace, but sometimes there were more complex psychological reasons.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, October 18, 2011 9:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I guess my point is that it's easier for some to fall in line with accepted norms, than to step out on their own.

Oh please, you're the poster boy for the lock-step.

But your point is actually spot on.

The laughing Chrisisall

1KIKI

Tuesday, October 18, 2011 10:07 PM

"... the group is going out for pizza, for example, one of them has to be pretty self-assured to order a salad, or not go at all."

But a pizza here or there isn't going to wreck your overall nutrition. What counts is what you do day to day. For example, school lunches are notoriously bad nutrition, as are soda, snack and candy machines at school. Add to that a home environment of steady fast food, and is it no wonder that kids gain weight.

Among whites, peer pressure is to be thin - and girls will go to extreme lengths - even take up smoking, or purge, or stave - to meet peer pressure.

Among poor African Americans and Latinos, not so much. What we see is NOT that kids succumb to peer pressure to be heavy, it's that they don't struggle so hard against an environment that trends them that way. Between lack of safe space to get out and be active, abysmal school food, and a fast food and pre-packaged food home diet, it's no wonder that kids get heavy. It's not group think, it's an environment.

While Wall St. is going through the roof, Main St. is paying all the bills.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, October 18, 2011 10:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

But a pizza here or there isn't going to wreck your overall nutrition.

Pizza is totally healthsome food, BTW. As long as the ingredients are good, and you add veggies to it.
I think it's a time factor as well. Poor peeps just wanna eat & go to bed, not spend 1&1/2 hours cooking then washing endless dishes & going to bed late to get up early for their minimum wage job.

As a student in college my diet was mainly Kraft mac & cheese.
Fast, easy, filling.
Not very healthy though. No protein. No roughage. Dudes with a slower metabolism than mine got chunky.

The laughing Chrisisall

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, October 18, 2011 10:38 PM

Speaking of, I made a vegan macaroni and no-cheese on Sunday that wasn't too bad. Not sure what the calorie content on the sauce was though.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Wednesday, October 19, 2011 5:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter: It seems however, that you prefer to point the finger of blame at your favourite target groups, poor disenfranchised racial minorities.

You see target groups, and 'minorities'.

I just see - people.

Ah you bring tears to my eyes. I can hear the violins.

However, it seems to me that you lack a little honesty about your own motivations. i've seen you post numerous posts specifying a particular ethnic or religious group in a negative manner. You don't come across as seeing them as 'just people', you appear to be saying some groups are more prone to violent behaviours, don't take responsibility for their actions etc etc. You have said that Islam is a religion of violence. You are the one who uses blaming language. So you don't see them as 'just people' at all. Or at least that is not what your posts convey. I'll remember to point this out to you next time you do it, so for gods sake try a little reflection or thought before you post your one liners that sound quite mindless and meaningless.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, October 19, 2011 11:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Ah you bring tears to my eyes. I can hear the violins.

However, it seems to me that you lack a little honesty about your own motivations. i've seen you post numerous posts specifying a particular ethnic or religious group in a negative manner. You don't come across as seeing them as 'just people', you appear to be saying some groups are more prone to violent behaviours, don't take responsibility for their actions etc etc. You have said that Islam is a religion of violence. You are the one who uses blaming language. So you don't see them as 'just people' at all. Or at least that is not what your posts convey. I'll remember to point this out to you next time you do it, so for gods sake try a little reflection or thought before you post your one liners that sound quite mindless and meaningless.

It's my honesty which you can't seem capable of dealing with, that's your problem. Everyone starts out as 'folk', and then gets dumbed down by cultural / religious " group thought".

Some groups ARE more prone to violent behavior, and you act is if me saying it is some how unfair, or makes it untrue. Just look at the results, of what people have done, in the NAME of Islam, for example. It ain't pretty.

Reflection is fine, but you might want to open your eyes to the NOW, every once in a while.

And I'm sorry that quotes from Firefly / Serenity fly right over your head. I'm a fan of both, so sorry if that bothers you.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, October 19, 2011 1:52 PM

Culture and/or religion are part of what makes folk FOLK. Take that away, and I'm not sure you have folk anymore.

Take "being an American" away from AURaptor, and what is left?

Perhaps saying that all people are just folk necessarily implies that one has to be able to tolerate the differences between folk, whatever they might be.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Wednesday, October 19, 2011 4:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Ah you bring tears to my eyes. I can hear the violins.

However, it seems to me that you lack a little honesty about your own motivations. i've seen you post numerous posts specifying a particular ethnic or religious group in a negative manner. You don't come across as seeing them as 'just people', you appear to be saying some groups are more prone to violent behaviours, don't take responsibility for their actions etc etc. You have said that Islam is a religion of violence. You are the one who uses blaming language. So you don't see them as 'just people' at all. Or at least that is not what your posts convey. I'll remember to point this out to you next time you do it, so for gods sake try a little reflection or thought before you post your one liners that sound quite mindless and meaningless.

It's my honesty which you can't seem capable of dealing with, that's your problem. Everyone starts out as 'folk', and then gets dumbed down by cultural / religious " group thought".

Some groups ARE more prone to violent behavior, and you act is if me saying it is some how unfair, or makes it untrue. Just look at the results, of what people have done, in the NAME of Islam, for example. It ain't pretty.

Reflection is fine, but you might want to open your eyes to the NOW, every once in a while.

And I'm sorry that quotes from Firefly / Serenity fly right over your head. I'm a fan of both, so sorry if that bothers you.

Yeah, QED. It's hard to argue with someone who backflips more than a gymnist. Which one is it - are we all just individuals who are entirely responsible for our own actions or are we part of some larger culture than may influence our behaviour? Do you just see folk or do you define folk by their religion/class/ethnicity? At least be consistent because you make a statement and contradict it several posts later.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Wednesday, October 19, 2011 4:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Culture and/or religion are part of what makes folk FOLK. Take that away, and I'm not sure you have folk anymore.

Take "being an American" away from AURaptor, and what is left?

Perhaps saying that all people are just folk necessarily implies that one has to be able to tolerate the differences between folk, whatever they might be.

[sarcasm]OH well that would be RACIST, Byte, admitting that culture and religion can define who people are. [/sarcasm]

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, October 19, 2011 4:41 PM

I am an imperfect being.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, October 19, 2011 7:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Yeah, QED. It's hard to argue with someone who backflips more than a gymnist. Which one is it - are we all just individuals who are entirely responsible for our own actions or are we part of some larger culture than may influence our behaviour? Do you just see folk or do you define folk by their religion/class/ethnicity? At least be consistent because you make a statement and contradict it several posts later.

I am consistent, you're just not paying attention.

We all start out pretty much the same, but then get programmed by all sorts of group think.

Try and keep up, k ?

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, October 19, 2011 8:50 PM

I don't think that's what that quote meant. I mean, in context it was about Mal accepting that the Alliance guys in Bushwhacked have to do their jobs and saying that he's no longer an Independent.

The group think doesn't change them from being just folk. So a different culture than ours doesn't stop being "just folk" because of their culture.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, October 19, 2011 8:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I don't think that's what that quote meant. I mean, in context it was about Mal accepting that the Alliance guys in Bushwhacked have to do their jobs and saying that he's no longer an Independent.

The group think doesn't change them from being just folk. So a different culture than ours doesn't stop being "just folk" because of their culture.

"War's long done,...We're all just folk now." -

Mal Reynolds ( SERENITY 2005 )

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, October 19, 2011 9:04 PM

...I really need to rewatch if I'm messing up what quotes come from where.

Though the context about it being a comment to a representative of the Alliance about their job and him no longer being an Independent seems to be correct still.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, October 19, 2011 9:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
...I really need to rewatch if I'm messing up what quotes come from where.

Though the context about it being a comment to a representative of the Alliance about their job and him no longer being an Independent seems to be correct still.

They were actually trying to frame the crew of Serenity for the slaughter of the settlers, if you recall. By bringing up Mal's war record, and as a volunteer for the Independents, Harken was insinuating that Mal , out of desire for vengeance against the Alliance, was the one behind this attack.

But I digress. Yes, nothing wrong with going back and watching Firefly / Serenity over , again and again.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, October 19, 2011 9:31 PM

Well, not frame exactly, because Harken didn't believe in Reavers until he got up close and personal with one that had been turned.

Harken actually did think of Mal as guilty, he was prejudiced. Mal then proceeds to show a surprising lack of prejudice towards Harken, and even saves the man's life. Very inclusive of him, considering everything the Alliance did to him.

Mal complains about the Alliance for good reason when they can't hear him, but at the same time it doesn't stop him from thinking of them as people and trying to do right by them (even when they haven't exactly returned the favour). That's kind of why he's a hero.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, October 19, 2011 9:48 PM

( love how this thread has gone... )

Mal's also thinking of his crew, and what it'd mean if the Alliance frames them for what the Reavers have done.

And understandable that Harken is dismissive of the Reaver story. Reavers don't leave many survivors, if they can help it. And the Alliance, well, they had a secret to keep, so the 'story' of Reavers was likely dismissed as a cover, for other nefarious activity.

At least, that's what Harken likely thought.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, October 19, 2011 10:04 PM

Maybe, but it's also suggested that this is Harken's first tour out on the Rim, and that he may actually be unaware of Reavers beyond the "urban legends" (so to speak) that people tell.

The shooting script describes Harken being attacked by the Reaver as a "trial by fire" for him, and there's also something in there about an initiation, or ritual.

What I took away from the episode was that Harken learned that Reavers really do exist. He seemed to be unaware of the cover-up in regards to Reavers, because if he was, he would have framed Mal and co rather than have it get out that Reavers might be real. Instead, he lets them go, having decided that Mal and co are innocent and not thinking of any cover up at all.

RIONAEIRE

Thursday, October 20, 2011 12:11 AM

I suspect that when Joss made Bushwhacked, he hadn't decided to do the Miranda-is-where-the-Reavers-came-from thing yet. Because the guy in the ship became a Reaver without any PAX. People don't seem to like the idea that Joss was figuring it out as he went, but that's normal for someone who is creating a story/show to do some of.

Niki, do you think peanut butter M and Ms can count as protein? Because that's what I did this week for breakfast. :P I hate being hungry all the time, I can't focus. I'll keep trying for protein in the morning but its so hard, I don't have a lot of time and I just don't like eating breakfast unless its Sat. and my dad and I go out to eat it or he makes organic eggs and stuff, mmmmmmmmmm.

When I was a little girl I was a lot like the people on those shows with Freaky Eaters (that's the American version of what Magon's mentioned.) Now I'm not like that though, I like a lot of things, though there are still some things I don't like. But not many. I'm thankful I grew out of being picky. It wasn't anything my parents did either, it was just me growing up and my tastebuds changing. My little nephew is picky and he's already starting to grow out of it, he's 8 and he eats more things as he gets older. My stepgrandma is still really picky, she's not bad enough to be on one of those shows, but she is very picky for an adult. She's pretty healthy though which is good.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

BYTEMITE

Thursday, October 20, 2011 1:16 AM

Heh, I had the opposite thing, I'd eat anything as a kid, and I still kinda eat a lot of stuff that most people wouldn't exactly consider "food."

Though again, if I was served the fatty and greasy stuff I wouldn't eat much of it.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Thursday, October 20, 2011 4:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

I am consistent, you're just not paying attention.

We all start out pretty much the same, but then get programmed by all sorts of group think.

Try and keep up, k ?

You're fooling yourself matey. Didn't you say.....

Quote:
Parents have, for a large part, control over what their children watch and eat. This idea that we're all brainless programable robots, falling victim to the whims of some heartless, faceless ad agency's dark, insidious intentions, is comical rubbish.

So we are programmable or we are not programmable? We are individuals who are fully responsible for ourselves or we are subjected to group think as we grow up?

BTW Are you 13?

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Thursday, October 20, 2011 4:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:

When I was a little girl I was a lot like the people on those shows with Freaky Eaters (that's the American version of what Magon's mentioned.) Now I'm not like that though, I like a lot of things, though there are still some things I don't like. But not many. I'm thankful I grew out of being picky. It wasn't anything my parents did either, it was just me growing up and my tastebuds changing. My little nephew is picky and he's already starting to grow out of it, he's 8 and he eats more things as he gets older. My stepgrandma is still really picky, she's not bad enough to be on one of those shows, but she is very picky for an adult. She's pretty healthy though which is good.

I was a picky eater as well and I grew out of it. I think that a lot of those people were really infantile, which is why they still ate like babies.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, October 20, 2011 9:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

You're fooling yourself matey. Didn't you say....

So we are programmable or we are not programmable? We are individuals who are fully responsible for ourselves or we are subjected to group think as we grow up?

BTW Are you 13?

Yes.

And no, but I was 13, at one time. You there yet?

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, October 21, 2011 5:28 PM

Alas, I don't have time to bring out the flamethrower and it'd be all but pointless anyways but lemme point a few damn things out to you.

Remember you're talkin to a person who's eaten tree bark in order to survive in some pretty damn extreme conditions, right ?

You think "poor" and you have no goddamn idea, none, what it's like to have to steal salt (ask Siggy why) in order to not die, when toilet paper is a fucking LUXURY you can't afford and you wind up all but praying for more junk mail, or at least that some other jackass as poor as you are hasn't made it to the newspaper machine with a slim fistfull of change before you do...

And if you're "working" poor when the hell are you going to find the goddamn TIME to price-compare, all the fuckin things you TAKE FOR GRANTED do not exist....
The bus ? shit, where you gonna get the MONEY, does the bus even GO there, will it even stop in your neighborhood instead of blowing by cause the driver gets wiggy about getting mugged three times a week, or just not come at all, with our terrible broken public transporation system and all.
So you're limited to hoofing it, and that no-fresh-produce thing... it WAS true in fuckin Detroit, just so you know - one of the things our renengade urban farmers DO is fill that gap for the local down and out, at risk of their safety and freedom often enough with the goddamn monsanto-fellating sumbitches of the local Dept of Natural Resources trashing their crops at every turn and corner.
You still ain't gonna find anything decent in the few places you CAN hoof it to, and you WILL pay three to five times as much, a gallon of milk goes up to $4.35USD in some of em, and YOU HAVE NO CHOICE - no time, no transportation, no alternatives.

And then there's getting back to your hovel *WITH* the stuff, and you damn well better have one hand free, and it not empty, or a buddy if you have any - people shop in groups, some places, when they can, cause of rush-n-snatch skells even hungier than they are, and you think THEY give a fuck about nutrition ?

Bah, lets just say someone sitting in their goddamn ivory tower whinging about how poor people should just suck it up, is prone to make the same goddamn assumptions ivory tower anarchists are about sewage and waste disposal - taking things for granted to the point where those things and how they come to be are invisible to their consciousness.

You know, stuff like cooking oil, actual cookware, heat or fire to cook with - you go down poor enough, YOU CAN NOT MAKE THESE ASSUMPTIONS.

I've been there, it ain't pretty, but you wanna *solve* the problem instead of blaming the folk your society pauperizes for the benefit of the very ivory tower folk who write this drivel...

Then you MAKE that society stop doing so.
No Matter What It Takes.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

CANTTAKESKY

Sunday, October 23, 2011 11:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
At $198.00 delivered, it's not that expensive.

To someone with a monthly income of $400, it's half a month's salary--a salary whose every cent is already allocated for rent and utilities and transportation and food. (Do you KNOW any poor people?)

I believe in personal responsibility, of course. An individual always has the choice to eat more healthily. (ETA: Assuming that he/she is not starving, which then is a different situation.)

But we would be negligent and disingenuous if we don't acknowledge that industry and society and culture don't make it EASY to make that choice. For many poor people (esp. REALLY poor people), that making a choice to eat healthily is a choice to swim upstream.

It shouldn't be that way.

CANTTAKESKY

Sunday, October 23, 2011 11:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Because the guy in the ship became a Reaver without any PAX.

I think there are different ways to become a Reaver. That is, there is the original way they were created, and then there is a way for them to "procreate," as it were.

That is not to argue with your main point that Joss may have been figuring it all out as he went along.

RIONAEIRE

Monday, October 24, 2011 4:40 AM

CTS, its been a while.
I agree with your asessment upon the Reaver situation. Reasonable position. It makes me think about the lengths one will go to to survive, to cope, to keep going, even if it isn't pretty or desirable.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, October 24, 2011 2:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
CTS, its been a while.
I agree with your asessment upon the Reaver situation. Reasonable position. It makes me think about the lengths one will go to to survive, to cope, to keep going, even if it isn't pretty or desirable.

Having seen some of those lengths, both personally and in my work, I have a tremendous respect for the indomitable human will, which can be downright awesome in its power.

Sure, some of those triumphs are ugly, but they ARE triumphs, none the less.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

1KIKI

Monday, June 25, 2012 10:59 PM

Well, I was going through some old links, and one of them brought this thread to mind. This is the thread where Geezer claims that if poor people weren't so stupid and lazy, and where little Rappy claims that if poor people just weren't SUCH stupid sheep, they could ALL eat healthy nutritious meals, every meal, every day.

http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news-Healthy-Eating-Costs-More-0805
11.aspx

Healthy Eating Costs More

A healthy diet is expensive and could make it difficult for Americans to meet new U.S. nutritional guidelines, according to a study that says the government should do more to help consumers eat healthier.

An update of what used to be known as a food pyramid in 2010 had called on Americans to eat more foods containing potassium, dietary fiber, vitamin D and calcium. But if they did that, the study authors say, they would add hundreds more dollars to their annual grocery bill.

click link to read more